pages: OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
OpenGovernmentCommission | 2021-04-05 | 8 | PUBLIC COMMENT: Stated the complaint was handled very poorly by the City; to classify the complaint as voluntarily withdrawn is erroneous and indefensible; it is a violation of how public records requests should operate; to preach about the City's 30 day policy and then release records from day 31 to 90 does not hold water; it sounds like the City does not have a policy: Matt Reid, Alameda. Stated that she found it curious that the balancing test and redacting minors applies when it pertains to APD and their records, but not in regards to our neighbors interested in working on police reform; she is confused why Vice Chair Shabazz is being taken to task tor merely communicating with a reporter, when a Councilmember and former Mayor who released the names of neighbors on a Next Door post: Jenice Anderson, Alameda. Chair Tilos stated the whole reason for the Commission is to be more public and more transparent about records; some things did not go smoothly; he urges the Commission to include that in the discussion; he hopes to tackle some of the points brought up in the conversation that do not seem right. Vice Chair Shabazz stated there is something to say about the process the complainant shared; the 12 day response period violates the California Public Records Act. Chair Tilos stated there is a contradiction between calendar and business days if a response could carry forward if day 10 falls on a Saturday or Sunday. The City Clerk clarified that City Hall is only open 4 days a week, Monday through Thursday; typically, the City tries to respond by Thursday if it falls over the weekend; April 27th was a Monday, which added extra days. Vice Chair Shabazz stated that he asked the question because his understanding is it is calendar days; the law does not state it is business days; regardless of the operations of the City and what typically happens, it did not happen in this case; unless there is some correspondence requesting a 14 day extension, the City did not respond timely and was in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance; one of the main questions he has is why all the information was not given in the initial request; in 2018, he also filed a PRA request for arrest information, which was also denied; it was not until later requesting information that he eventually got it; regarding Mr. Morris's request from the correspondence as visible , it does not seem that there is a technical challenge to be able to access the information; again, there just seems to be something blocking information coming from the City Attorney's Office; he suggests finding the complaint sustained on the basis of the lack of response within the 10 day period; as far as potential resolutions, there could be some conversation about a potential pattern and some reform to provide consistent access to records, particularly coming from the City Attorney's office. Commissioner Reid stated that she agrees with the goal of transparency and access to information; if data is accessible, it should be provided on day one. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 8 | OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf |